DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

He was. Plus there are editors who are currently saying the same thing, both internally and in this forum. Fortunately, we're getting much farther with this internally than we are here. Time to come home, brizzie.

 

brizzie ;

one policy is not exclusive of another. You can still implement everything that you have mentioned and as minimum, minimum requirement implement a condition that sites without 2257 can not be listed.
Have you ever wondered why people who supposedly want harder condition, would not like to have a minimum requirement? I can tell you why, because it is something that is controllable, instead of bunch of words that can be argued for ever when the question of abuse is raised.
I think you missed my post about what will happen if we leave this for DMOZ editors to discuss, so I repeat it for you here:

Now let's have a typical DMOZ discussion about "Lolita" guideline:

"editor 1) Lolita means young girls, may be we should not list it.

editor 2) what do you mean by young? Young means 18 in USA but in Mongolia 18 is already old.

editors 3) May be we should not concentrate on age and instead think about how far she has opened her legs in the picture and if it is waxed or not.

editor 4) I agree with number 2 that young is a matter of definition and I don't like the girls who wax their private part as mentioned by editor 3

Let's make a guideline about Lolita:

DMOZ should not list sites that have young girls but young is a matter of definition in different countries and cultures, therefor while generally we do not list sites with young girls, sometime editor should be able to list sites with young girls. You can also look in the FAQ section of this guideline if the girls are waxed or not and DMOZ position on how much they have opened their legs."

In the end, every thing will be listed exactly as before and anybody that question the listings, will get an answer that there are exceptions to the rule. A large number of DMOZ guidelines, states 2 policies that are opposite and in contradiction to each other for the same reason, because it makes it possible to do anything.

 

It is. Your legal arguments go round and round in circles and get nowhere and at the same time provide ammo against change - even those who want tough guidelines that go way beyond any country's legal provision are forced to acknowledge the flaws in the legal stuff about 2257. So forget it and devise a policy that gives all the supposed protection of 2257 and fills in the loopholes, defined as an international DMOZ policy all editors must abide by.

Did you notice the April Admin report and its provision about verifyability of sites? Is there something there you can draw upon? And the ban on sites that appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles? What you need is something that transcends laws that DMOZ isn't breaking anyhow.

Let's not have a discussion about hypothetical fiction involving hypothetical editors having a hypothetical discussion that omits all those other editors who would intervene in the name of common sense. Your hypothetical thread is complete nonsense and would not happen let alone being typical. Again, whilst highly imaginative, it does not help resolve the real issues but instead diverts attention whilst people focus on correcting the nonsense. I have serious serious concerns with some Adult editors and their debating tactics but the possibility of that figment of your fine imagination actually coming true isn't one of them. Try not to exaggerate - it damages your credibility and the overall case everyone else is trying to make reality.

 

I must disagree with you Brizzie based on my understanding of the legal statues that I feel apply to this. Dmoz is promoting these illegal sites. Dmoz is more than a listing link directory. IMO Dmoz is a gateway to serveral topics across its directory. Dmoz has stated more than once that it is not a search engine but considers itself a wealth of information for the general public that includes what it feels is the most relevant information for any subject.

So based on inclusion and exclusion I can determine that Dmoz is in a sense a host for several topic matters. Once again its just my opinion but I feel when Dmoz is adding a description to the sites link, which is created by Dmoz that then makes that listing a site in which Dmoz feels it should be promoted to the general public.

Based on my opinions and as I understand the statues.

The definition of publishing is: To bring to the public attention.
web site is defined as: A set of interconnected webpages, usually including a homepage, generally located on the same server, and prepared and maintained as a collection of information by a person, group, or organization.


IMO Dmoz meets both definitions of this statue. Now considering this is what Dmoz is doing by listing these type sites. My understanding of the statue is that it must also be applied to Dmoz. This means that Dmoz should keep on file or be required to keep on file the 2257 for any site it list in the adult section that shows photos of nude girls and guys.

I dont think it is any more clear cut than this.

 

Not to stray out of the normal conversation here, but I have noticed something rather interesting when it comes to DMOZ's listings...

Playing around with various searches via the ODP dump, I found that there are a hell of a lot dead links/dead sites listed in DMOZ (non-porn), but could not find one dead link/site as it concerened the subject matter being discussed here.

Odd that the child porn db seems to be quite devoid of non-functioning links, while non-porn links/sites that no longer function are all over the place. Hell, even one of the sites we hosted for a customer that is listed in DMOZ seems to be there. The site has been dead since 1998!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

 

Do you mean the whole 10 posts that is made from yestersday?

Sid suggested that after looking at this subject in DP, may be DMOZ should not use the world Lolita.

Admin spanked him for listing to members in DP and explaining adolescent can means anything and not necessary under-age.

Sid begged the admin to answer this question and doesn't ignore it even if the fuckwits in DP has raised it.

another editor said, may be they should change all the Lolita in titles to something else, so it is not so obvious.

another editall announced that everyone in DP is disgusting and all are bad people.

Did I miss anything? Yes, editors are really getting much farther on this subject.

 

That is the point. You are not a judge in a court making the decision and these are highly complex legal matters. If AOL lawyers believed as you do, and they will be experts on Internet law and US law, then there would be a ban already. So they don't think there is a case to answer or it is not cut and dried. The legal route is not the one to take to get an answer implemented quickly - courts are messy and cases can take years. And the authorities have not taken the view there is a case to answer as yet either. Until any of those positions change then forget legal routes and focus on what can be done in the here and now that goes further by closing loopholes and technicalities.

 

Once again that just shows that the powers that be within Dmoz dont want people to think for themselves and anyone who does and disagrees with Dmoz is as an editall said is disgusting. I know that not all editors can be mindless drones, so why do those of you who edit and have an ounce of moral fiber can you defend a organization that promotes unethical and immoral practices.

I think this editall should look at the child porn supplied within Dmoz and rethink what the definition of disgusting is. Then again this editall must have a stake in the adult section.

Face it Dmoz is hell bent on not changing their money pit.

 

Very entertaining gworld. If that is the same standard of paraphrasing accompanied by your own slant as you do here you'll excuse me if I take it with a pinch of salt. But some things ring true.

Sid raising an issue. He's good at that even when it isn't going to make him friends and win him promotion.

Changing Lolita to something else to disguise it - I can believe someone said that - some people just don't get it. Or were being misinterpreted out of context. Doesn't mean other editors wouldn't have been reading it.

"Everyone in DP is disgusting and all are bad people" - heard that one before. Their loss, makes them as bad as people here saying editors are disgusting and all are bad people. There is good and bad in both camps. Listening to one another is the only way to get to the bottom of grains of truth that lurk in many an obnoxious rant. Ignore those at your peril. Alternative perspectives are always useful even if at the end of the day you dismiss them - at least it enables you to understand your detractors.

 

If you noticed I ended my post with:

Did I miss anything?

Annie, Sid and even the admin are here and they are welcome to mention anything that I might have missed.

May be at the the same time, they can explain for us how does this translates to:

"Fortunately, we're getting much farther with this internally than we are here. "

 

You are right Brizzie I am not a judge but legal decisions are made a lot of times before cases ever hit the courts. There is due process which must occur. I simple point out how the statues are looked at.

This is also incorrect. AOL does not want or wish to expose this issue by openingly admitting that what Dmoz is doing is illegal. With that admittance, what would follow would be a series of fines and possible criminal prosecution.

You are correct it is messy and can take years. However Dmoz has thumbed its nose up and refused to give an inch. Those that are in power presently at Dmoz do not wish to address or make these changes. This leads us to believe that the only recourse is through the legal channels, public outcry and congressional pressure.

As I mentioned before the wheels of justice move slowly. The US has never been known for accomplishing anything worthwhile in a timely manner. AOL/Dmoz is not a small organization by any means. I can promise you before anything is brought forth by any legal aurthorities, all the Ts and I's will be dotted and crossed.

Brizzie that was an option several months ago but Dmoz has already shown that they do not wish to change. As Gworld pointed out from internal Dmoz forums, " we are Disgusting, fu_kwits and bad people" these statements are coming from the people whom we are trying to get to change these policies. Try explaining how we can succeed in working with the powers that be at Dmoz when those are the opinions of those who need to make the changes.

 

Click on See more on lolitasex.com and check the images on the right.

http://www.lolitasex.com/tour02/eng/tour01.php?bill=

Now go to the well known (not only to me) torrent tracker with only erotic content and check their rules about what is allowed or not:

http://empornium.us/doc.php?show=prohibited

I will quote for the lazy persons :

Maybe Dmoz staff is better versed at detecting child porn than people working in the porn industry.

P.S. If you still don't get it, the images on the right in the See more page of lolitasex.com are frames from maria.avi video, which may or may not be available for download on that site. I don't know because I don't pay for that stuff.

 

It was a good find, so obviously people in porn industry already know this is a child porn and prohibit linking to it. it can not be more clear than what they have stated:

"ALL material from lolitasex.com is prohibited, and you will be banned for posting it. It is child pornography."

I specially like what they have on top of the page:

"Any torrents linking to Prohibited material posted by ANYONE will result in the poster being banned.
"But its legal in Bitchostan" won't fly. "But i didn't know" won't fly. Know what you're posting and stay a member in good standing."

These are exactly the BS excuses that is repeated by DMOZ editors.

Obviously people who run a porn site have higher morals than some of the DMOZ editors.

Does any of the editors like to still argue that is not a child porn when even porn industry considers it a child porn?

 

It doesn't have to, all it has to do is issue a ruling transmitted via Admins and no-one is any the wiser. I have never once heard of an AOL legal ruling being given out openly though no doubt it must have happened covertly.

And DMOZ discussions move slowly too. But quicker than a court case with debateable legal merits that hasn't even been started.

By providing coherent strong points that gain hearts and minds of editors and which they can use internally to exert pressure. Persistence and persuasion. Not much else you can do from outside. And which is why using exaggeration damages the case as it is easily countered by pointing that out.

 

Actually, even I'm amazed at how much you missed. That thread started on March 13, apparently you've missed almost 2 months of discussion on this topic.

No, you know guidelines prevent us from breeching forum confidentiality. Besides, that's your job, we wouldn't want you to feel useless.

Sorry, I won't do that because it would require you to pay attention to what editors post and you'll never do that so why waste everyone's time? It looks like troll bait to me and I don't have time to play right now. Maybe I'll come play when I need a break from really working on this problem.

 

Yes, it did and then nothing happened until yesterday when Sid posted in that thread. It is not breaking the rules, if you re-phrase the discussion and tell us if I have missed anything. Can you explain why after 2 month from start of that thread, sites that are considered child porn even by porn industry still listed.

If there is nothing to say, you can always use the usual excuse that DMOZ is more secretive than NSA and CIA combined and you have to kill all of us if you tell us anything about discussions in internal forum.

 

gworld, with all due respect from my side , you should know very well, that it is not the duty of any editor to tell you anything about discussions going on in internal threads, you were and you are always welcome to participate at the same yourself.

 

I didn't think that it was their duty, brizzie said that I some time exaggerate about things and in order to show I have given a realistic picture of discussions, I invited any editor that think I have missed something to point out, what I have missed.

I was looking at the text from the porn site:

"Any torrents linking to Prohibited material posted by ANYONE will result in the poster being banned.
"But its legal in Bitchostan" won't fly. "But i didn't know" won't fly. Know what you're posting and stay a member in good standing."

and it came to me that this probably will make a good guideline for adult:

"Any listing of Prohibited material listed by ANYONE will result in the editor being banned.
"But its legal in Bitchostan" won't fly. "But i didn't know" won't fly. Know what you're listing in DMOZ and stay an editor in good standing."

May be this way, we can get rid of all the BS excuses from adult and some non adult editors.

 

One might get the impression that there is also some exaggeration involved, but talking about what you think was a realistic picture, you have to admit that this is purely your impression. At this very point I agree with Annie, that problems here are too serious than having them boiled down and getting them presented in almost the same manner over and over again.

 

Wow!
I am really happy to see there is an internal discussion about "lolita" at dmoz, and that they are considering taking action. This is great news, and a step in the right direction.

I have a feeling I may not be well liked at dmoz, but I hope you realize that removing this "lolita" junk makes dmoz and the web a slightly better place, and helps reduce the acceptance of the exploitation of children on the web.

It is still happening, and DMOZ needs to do their part to stop it.

Again, thank you, and I hope that we might one day look back, and be able to say that tough decisions were made, but we did the right thing!